Photographic albums, made of paper, leather, metal clasps and
plated clasps, imported in April, May and June, 1885, the paper
being worth more than all the rest of the materials put together,
were not liable to a duty of 30 percent
ad valorem, as
"manufactures and articles of leather," under Schedule N of the Act
of March 3, 1883, c. 121, 22 Stat. 513, but were liable to a duty
of only 15 percent
ad valorem, under Schedule M of that
act, 22 Stat. 510, as a manufacture of paper, or of which paper was
"a component material, not specially enumerated or provided for" in
that act.
Under § 6 of that act, (p. 491), title 33 of the Revised
Statutes was abrogated after July 1, 1883, and § 2499 in that title
was made to read so that
"on all articles manufactured from two or more materials, the
duty shall be assessed at the highest rates at which the component
material of chief value may be chargeable,"
instead of reading that "on all articles manufactured from two
or more materials, the duty shall be assessed at the highest rates
at which any of its component parts may be chargeable," and that
new provision was applicable to this case, although the new § 2499
also provided that "if two or more rates of duty should be
applicable to any imported article, it shall be classified for duty
under the highest of such rates."
This last provision was not properly applicable, under § 2499,
to an article "manufactured from two or more materials," and it had
sufficient scope if applied to articles not manufactured from two
or more materials, but still
prima facie subject to "two
or more rates of duty."
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action at law brought in the Superior Court of the
City of New York by Adolph Liebenroth, Iwan Von
Page 144 U. S. 36
Auw, William Graham, and Herman Schliecher, composing the firm
of Liebenroth, Von Auw & Co., against William H. Robertson,
collector of the port of New York, to recover the sum of $552.55,
as an alleged excess of duties exacted by the defendant on
importations into the port of New York of photographic albums, in
April, May, and June, 1885, the duties assessed having been paid,
protests duly filed, and appeals taken to the Secretary of the
Treasury. The suit was removed by the defendant by certiorari into
the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of
New York. The case was tried before the court and a jury in
January, 1888, and a verdict found for the defendant by the
direction of the court, followed by a judgment for him for costs.
The plaintiffs have brought a writ of error.
There is a bill of exceptions which shows that the substantive
part of the protest was as follows:
"We hereby protest against your decision and assessment of
duties, as made by you, and the payment of more than as below
claimed, on our importations below mentioned, consisting of certain
bound albums or album books, claiming that, under existing laws,
and section 2499 and Schedule M, Act of March 3, 1883, said goods
are liable to only 15%
ad val. as a manufacture of which
paper is the component material of chief value, not otherwise
specially enumerated or provided for, or claiming that, under
existing laws, and particularly by said section and said schedule,
they are liable at only 20%
ad val. as 'blank books,' or
said goods are liable at no more than 25%
ad val. as
'books' under same section and schedule."
The duty was exacted and paid at the rate of 30 percent
ad
valorem on the goods, as manufactures of articles of leather,
or of which leather was a component part, they being composed of
paper, leather, metal clasps, and plated clasps, and, of their
various component materials, the paper being, in ninety-nine cases
out of a hundred, worth more than all the rest of the materials put
together. The examiner in the appraiser's department testified on
the trial that he classified the goods as "manufactures of leather
and paper, leather chief value," but that his classification was
erroneous because the paper
Page 144 U. S. 37
was the material of chief value. They were dutiable under the
Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, 22 Stat. 488.
Neither photographic albums nor albums of any kind were
specified by those names as dutiable. Schedule N of that act (page
513) imposes a duty of 30 percent
ad valorem on "all
manufactures and articles of leather, or of which leather shall be
a component part, not specially enumerated or provided for in this
act." By Schedule M of the act (page 510) a duty of 15 percent
ad valorem is imposed on "paper, manufactures of, or of
which paper is a component material, not specially enumerated or
provided for in this act," and a duty of 20 percent
ad
valorem on "blank books, bound or unbound, and blank books for
press copying," and also a duty of 25 percent
ad valorem
on "books, pamphlets, bound or unbound, . . . not specially
enumerated or provided for in this act."
By title 33 of the Revised Statutes § 2499, it was provided as
follows:
"There shall be levied, collected, and paid on each and every
nonenumerated article which bears a similitude, either in material,
quality, texture, or the use to which it may be applied, to any
article enumerated in this title as chargeable with duty, the same
rate of duty which is levied and charged on the enumerated article
which it most resembles in any of the particulars before mentioned,
and if any nonenumerated article equally resembles two or more
enumerated articles, on which different rates
of duty are
chargeable, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, on such
nonenumerated article, the same rate of duty as is chargeable on
the article which it resembles paying the highest duty, and on all
articles manufactured from two or more materials the duty shall be
assessed at the highest rates
at which any of its component
parts may be chargeable."
By § 6 of the Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121, 22 Stat. 489, 491,
title 33 of the Revised Statutes was abrogated after July 1, 1883,
and the following section was substituted as § 2499:
"There shall be levied, collected, and paid on each and every
nonenumerated article which bears a similitude, either in material,
quality, texture, or the use to which it may be applied, to any
article enumerated in this title as chargeable with duty,
Page 144 U. S. 38
the same rate of duty which is levied and charged on the
enumerated article which it most resembles in any of the
particulars before mentioned, and if any nonenumerated article
equally resembles two or more enumerated articles on which
different rates are chargeable, there shall be levied, collected,
and paid on such nonenumerated article the same rate of duty as is
chargeable on the article which it resembles paying the highest
duty, and on all articles manufactured from two or more materials
the duty shall be assessed at the highest rates
at which the
component material of chief value may be chargeable. If two or
more rates of duty should be applicable to any imported article, it
shall be classified for duty under the highest of such rates,
provided that nonenumerated articles similar in material
and quality and texture, and the use to which they may be applied,
to articles on the free list, and in the manufacture of which no
dutiable materials are used, shall be free."
In comparing the former and later enactments of § 2499, it is to
be noted that in the later one, the words "of duty," in italics,
are omitted; that the words in the earlier one, "at which any of
its component parts may be chargeable," in italics, are omitted,
and the words in the later one, "at which the component material of
chief value may be chargeable," in italics, are substituted
therefor, and that the following language is added in the later
enactment, which does not appear in the earlier one:
"If two or more rates of duty should be applicable to any
imported article, it shall be classified for duty under the highest
of such rates,
provided that nonenumerated articles
similar in material and quality and texture, and the use to which
they may be applied, to articles on the free list, and in the
manufacture of which no dutiable materials are used, shall be
free."
At the close of the plaintiffs' testimony, the defendant,
without putting in any evidence, moved the court to direct a
verdict in his favor. The court did so, the plaintiffs excepted,
and a verdict was rendered for the defendant.
The question is as to whether the proper rate of duty on the
goods was 30 percent
ad valorem or only 15 percent
ad
Page 144 U. S. 39
valorem. Leather was a component part or material of
the article, and was dutiable at 30 percent Paper was a component
part or material of the article, and was dutiable at 15 percent. On
the view that both of those two rates of duty were applicable to
the article, and that there was a provision in § 2499, as enacted
by the Act of March 3, 1883, that in such case the article should
be classified for duty under the highest of the two rates -- that
is, in this case, 30 percent -- that rate of duty was assessed.
The reasons assigned by the Circuit Court for directing a
verdict for the defendant are reported in 33 F. 457, and it would
appear from them that the court gave no effect to the later
provision in § 2499, as enacted by the Act of March 3, 1883,
that
"on all articles manufactured from two or more materials, the
duty shall be assessed at the highest rates at which the component
material of chief value may be chargeable."
These albums were articles manufactured from materials two of
which were paper and leather, and, as the evidence distinctly
showed that the paper was the component material of chief value,
the duty was assessable, under Schedule M of the act of 1883 at 15
percent, under the clause imposing that duty on "paper,
manufactures of, or of which paper is a component material, not
specially enumerated or provided for in this act."
The change, in the later enactment of § 2499, of the duty on
"all articles manufactured from two or more materials," from a duty
"at the highest rates at which any of its component parts may be
chargeable" to a duty "at the highest rates at which the component
material of chief value may be chargeable" is very significant,
especially considered in connection with the new provision in the
later § 2499 that "if two or more rates of duty should be
applicable to any imported article, it shall be classified for duty
under the highest of such rates." There was clearly a new
classification provided for as to "all articles manufactured from
two or more materials," based upon the highest rate chargeable on
"the component material of chief value," and the further new
provision was
Page 144 U. S. 40
added imposing the highest rate of duty where two or more rates
of duty were applicable to an article. This last provision was not
properly applicable, under § 2499, to an article "manufactured from
two or more materials," and it had sufficient scope if applied to
articles not manufactured from two or more materials, but still
prima facie subject to "two or more rates of duty."
The decision by the circuit court in the present case was made
in January, 1888. Since that date, there have been three decisions
by this Court bearing on the question involved.
In
Arthur v. Butterfield, 125 U. S.
70,
125 U. S. 76,
decided in March, 1888, it was held under the later § 2499 that
"to place articles among those designated as enumerated, it is
not necessary that they should be specifically mentioned. It is
sufficient that they are designated in any way to distinguish them
from other articles,"
and that the words "manufactures of hair" were a sufficient
designation to place such manufactures among the enumerated
articles.
In
Hartranft v. Meyer, 135 U.
S. 237,
135 U. S. 239,
decided in April, 1890, attention was called to the change made by
the act of 1883 in § 2499 in regard to "articles manufactured from
two or more materials," assessing the duty on them "at the highest
rates at which the component material of chief value may be
chargeable," instead of "at the highest rates at which any of its
component parts may be chargeable," as a change by which, "instead
of making the duty depend on the highest rate at which any
component part is chargeable, it is made to depend on the highest
rate at which the component material of chief value is chargeable,"
and in that case, the article being composed of silk, cotton, and
wool, the silk being the component material of chief value, this
Court held that the duty was chargeable at the silk rate, which was
higher than the rate chargeable on the other component materials of
the goods.
So, too, in
Mason v. Robertson, 139 U.
S. 624, decided in April, 1891, § 2499, as enacted by
the Act of March 3, 1883, was under consideration, and
Arthur
v. Butterfield and
Hartranft v. Meyer were cited. The
question was whether bichromate
Page 144 U. S. 41
of soda was a nonenumerated article within the "similitude
clause" of § 2499, and thus subject to the same duty as bichromate
of potash, which was specifically enumerated, or was subject to
duty as a chemical compound of salt not specially enumerated or
provided for in that act. The circuit court had ruled that the
article was a nonenumerated one bearing a similitude in use to
bichromate of potash, had declined to submit to the jury the
question of similitude, and had directed a verdict for the
defendant. The importer claimed that the article was liable to a
duty of only 25 percent
ad valorem as a chemical compound
and salt not specially enumerated or provided for in the act. This
Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court and alluded to the
fact that the description "manufactures composed wholly of cotton,"
or even "manufactures of cotton," had been held to be a sufficient
enumeration, citing
Stuart v.
Maxwell, 16 How. 150, and
Fisk v. Arthur,
103 U. S. 431, and
holding that there was nothing in its decision inconsistent with
the decisions in
Stuart v.
Maxwell, 16 How. 150, and in
Arthur v.
Fox, 108 U. S. 125.
The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case
is remanded to that court, with an instruction to grant a new
trial.